Ace-Garageguy

The '32 Ford 5-window only used TWO hinges on the front. Not just me, but Ford's own engineers in 1932 seemed to think the additional weight of the 3-window door was worth another hinge. More weight needs more structure to support it.

They're still being used on a few cars today, but things like electric interlocks that keep them from being opened while moving greatly reduce the "unsafe" factor. By the way...when we build rods or customs with suicide-doors, it's common now to replace the old one-click latches with 2-click styles that latch partially even if the door isn't completely shut...AND to install either manual or solenoid-operated pins to prevent accidental opening at speed.

Sorry, weight is a factor, believe it or not. It ALWAYS is in engineering. A '32 3-window door is considerably heavier than an open Ford door of the period. Remember, I work on these things day-in, day-out. As simple as a 2-hinge roadster door would seem to be, go work on a restoration or collision repair, and see what it takes to get them to operate correctly and close right, without slamming, like they're SUPPOSED to, every time. These old hinges are weak, they sag easily...as designed... and if the pillar they're attached to moves around, you're screwed. Yes, geometry is the predominant factor, but the extra weight of the '32-'33-'34 3-window suicide doors most definitely comes into play.

Yes, but the front cut-line of the door opening itself is vertical on the '35, not leaning back like the '32 3-window. The '35 uses TWO hinges, in line, on the vertical cut-line. It's very easy to engineer hinges on a vertical cut-line. It's much more difficult to do it on a line that slants, and requires hinge-think that wasn't in general use at the time. For a door to work, ALL the hinge-pins HAVE to be on the same axis. To accomplish this on a leaning-back cut-line would require at least one of the hinges to stick WAY out, or the rear of the door would swing in an odd arc that would make it unnecessarily difficult to engineer it to close properly...and it would look goofy. It's all just geometry. The earlier mention about the B-pillar on the '32 3-window being stronger is spot on. Closed Fords of the early '30s usually used THREE hinges in line on the front-hinged doors to support the weight. Hanging all the weight of the larger door of the 3-window required a stronger pillar to do it, yet still required three hinges in line. Hinge and more-steel-in-the-body design had progressed by '35 to be able to hang the entire door on two hinges easily, but it wasn't until considerably later in the evolution of body design that curved internal hinges capable of dealing with more pronounced body contours became mainstream.

Just a couple FYIs, for future reference, based on extensive first-hand experience. When you "sand" the styrene plastic that our models are made of, you invariably break the surface, which is usually somewhat harder and more solvent-resistant than what's under it. So, any solvents in your paint will attack where the surface has been sanded much more aggressively than they will on other areas. Case in point. I removed the raised peak and the emblem from this Revell '50 Olds hood. Naturally, in filing off the raised portions, I went into the softer material beneath it. I lightly scuffed the rest of the hood and started shooting primer. EVERYWHERE the raised details had been removed, the Duplicolor primer I used attacked and crazed the plastic, but it laid down nicely where the surface had just been scuffed. It took several sessions of lightly sanding the crazing out, re-shooting with primer, and re-sanding to get a perfect surface for paint...and a sufficient barrier of primer so that the paint wouldn't attack the underlying plastic again. But patience and practice have their rewards. After allowing the primered hood to dry very thoroughly, I shot a Duplicolor lacquer color over it. No crazing, and the paint slicked out very nice and glossy...in this shot with one coat of clear. This has not been sanded or polished, either. Practice, practice, practice...and patience.

VERY tasty.

Smallblock Chebbys are one of the most popular engines on Earth. Besides the little gem already mentioned in the Accurate Miniatures Corvettes, the engine in this old 1/25 Monogram '57 Chebby kit makes a good base. It comes with a factory-style Rochester mechanical fuel-injection setup, and an optional 2-4bbl crossram setup, looking a lot like the early Z-28. Manual trans, too.

Sad, but I think you're right. It appears that once you'd sanded the car, the Duplicolor was WAY too hot to use on the plastic (something nobody above mentioned) and crazed it badly...about the worst I've ever seen. Duplicolor WILL craze many of the plastics that kits are made from these days. On a positive note, you photographed the problem very well, and you might be on to something in creating a realistic vinyl-top texture. I wouldn't throw it out, though. You may someday need bits or shapes from the body to build something radical, and it might have just the part you need. What's there could certainly be the basis for a funny-car body, definitely. One other thing...this is the prefect illustration why I'm always harping on modelers testing the materials they want to combine (that aren't made specifically to go together on models) on the plastic from the kit you're working on at the moment. Plastic formulations vary, and a paint that might not hurt one kit will ruin another one. This is the reason the much vaunted "spoon test", while good for checking color and coverage, is useless for determining whether a particular paint or combination is safe for your model. This is also a perfect illustration of why it's a good idea to practice your painting techniques and get them dialed in BEFORE you commit to painting a model.

To avoid confusing the OP, the actual name of the Testors lacquer product is "One Coat", not "one-shot". There's a One Shot line of striping enamels and airbrush products, but it has nothing whatsoever to do with any Testors product. The Testors One Coat products are not entirely accurately named either. In my own experience, they MAY (or might, if you prefer ) take several coats to achieve good hiding...depending on the topcoat and primer colors. Also, to the OP...if you're having to remove paint to correct mistakes, you need to thoroughly read the paint-stripping how-to thread. As you suspect, repeated sanding will eventually ruin your model's body. You can, however, strip it an almost infinite number of times with no damage...if you do it right. I still use Testors enamel rattlecan products for wheels, engines, etc., with excellent results...usually...because they make a beautiful gloss on small parts you can't easily achieve without enamel. Occasionally, I'll get annoying bubbling on sharp edges, so I'm phasing out the canned enamels now that I have a good airbrush.

Yup, pretty much. Again, it had to do with a slow phasing-out of traditional construction methods, and riding the development-curve of press-tool technology for producing deeply-contoured, large steel panels. Interestingly, some European cars were considerably more advanced than their US counterparts in pressed-and-welded steel structures. This 1934 Citroen design is a full unibody, with no separate frame, and with no cloth roof insert.

I hope you feel better soon, really. It bites to be sick. Last winter I got something pretty bad. Lucky so far this year. Take care of yourself.

The balsa coupe is most impressive, and I'd be proud of it had I built it myself. It's remarkable what you've achieved using materials that aren't really well suited to doing this kind of work, materials and techniques that were all the modelers in the 1940s and early '50s had, as you note. So many builders today complain if their pre-molded parts don't fit perfectly, or if they have to remove a little molding flash; it's good to be reminded what can be done with nothing other than flat pieces of wood as a starting point.

Yes, I'm aware of that. My post says that ONE correct definition of "may" is expressing possibility. My post does NOT say it's THE ONLY definition of "may". YOUR (and Harry's) previous posts implied that the ONLY correct use of "may" was as expressing permission. May I inquire as to whether you may have misunderstood my meaning?

Spoon tests are fine for testing colors and coverage. BUT...you NEED to test the product ON THE PLASTIC THE ACTUAL MODEL IS MADE FROM. I can't overemphasize this. The plastic that many kits are being made of these days has much LESS SOLVENT RESISTANCE that hard styrene spoons. That means it might not craze a spoon, but may absolutely RUIN the surface of a model. TEST ON PARTS OF THE MODEL THAT WON'T SHOW, ON THE MODEL YOU WANT TO USE THE STUFF ON.

Wouldn't it be nice if they were just honest across the board and said something like: "OK, this is "customer service". Yeah, right. There's no one here who really gives a rat's rear about your little problem, and we only have this phone number to call because our marketing department thought you'd feel better if we had one. In the unlikely event you DO stay on the line and go through 15 minutes of pressing "one" or "two" with intervals of low-fidelity and annoying music, the human you might eventually talk to is many time zones away in India, isn't really named Mike, and can't possibly do anything for you anyway. Wouldn't it be easier for everyone concerned if you just send your payment in and accept that we're screwing you? Thanks, and have a nice day."

My educated guess is that you'll probably need a primer on some styrene parts, probably not on others. I've used these vinyl dyes extensively in the 1:1 world, as well as on flexible parts for models. The carrier solvents must be pretty hot, because the seem to penetrate flexible materials very well, and stick like there's no tomorrow. Hot solvents mean the dyes MAY be likely to craze styrene...especially the soft carp many recent kits are molded from. As the Snake says, please TEST, and let us know your findings.

Well fellas, the Oxford online dictionary seems to think, along with me, that one 'correct' use of the word "may" is as a modal verb defined as "expressing possibility". Thought you'd like to know. http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/us/definition/american_english/may

I think the gecko be likin' Flo...

The spindle-mount front wheels have a 5-pointed center star that looks like a Halibrand spindle-mount, but the 8 'spokes' are unusual. See what I mean? I think Ed has the right idea, but maybe start with some 8-spoke 'turbines' like this (these are 10), machine 'em down, stick on a different rim, drill out the centers, and graft in a Halibrand-style spindle-mount center (spindle-mount Halibrands are available in scale). The rear wheels on this car are unusual too, having 4 small holes rather than the more typical 5 holes of Halibrand "kidney beans". The knockoff centers are also unusual, and my bet would be that these are real pin-drive knockoff wheels. Somehow, I can't see fake knockoffs on this record-setting real drag car. EDIT: Yup. Here's a Halibrand 4-hole wheel with pin-drive and knockoffs.

I would.

Always one of my favorites. Tony Nancy's cars looked as good as they ran. Hardest part of doing a scale replica of this would be finding the right wheels.

To further illustrate the panel-line thing, here's one of mine. Nice glossy paint, but my panel-lines look like carp. Compare this to the work Mr. Cruz did on the beautiful red '53 Ford above. He did it right. I didn't. Small thing that makes a HUGE difference.

But the issue here isn't "too glossy". It's too-thick, where the seams weren't scribed often enough, and the material was allowed to form a meniscus (meniscus: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meniscus ) at the edges of panel lines that wasn't dealt with correctly. I've been guilty of this one myself, but if you look at the work of modelers who get-it, a high gloss looks very real. This model is by Marcos Cruz. Compare the gloss to the real cars in the second post.